Light Rail: Prospects and Perspectives Jeffrey M. Zupan Department of Planning, New Jersey Transit Corporation Newark, New Jersey

In the 1970s this author, while employed by Regional corridors with residential densities averaging 9 Plan Association (RPA), a New York region-based dwellings per acre over an area of 25 mi 2 or larger. planning and research not-for-profit organization, A full discussion appears elsewhere (_!,pp,155-162, participated in two large studies that sought to 187-188). It is of interest here, and for subsequent define the lane use conditions consistent with a discussion, to note that the niche for express bus variety of puhlic transit modes. In Public Transpor­ service was shown to be roughly the same as for tation and Land Use Policy (_!) transit cost and light rail, with park-and-ride bus services possible demand estimates were determined for hypothesized for CBDs in the 20 million ft 2 range, but that residential and nonresidential densities and devel­ "walk-on" express bus was shown to require CBDs of opment patterns. The result was a generalized topog­ 50 million ft 2 or more. raphy of "where transit works." Modes examined In Urban Rail in America (2) trip demand-based included taxi, dial-a-bus, local bus, express bus, criteria were developed for the-three fixed-guideway light rail, automated guideway transit, rapid tran­ modes examined. Each of these criteria was calculated sit, and commuter rail. Following this effort, in with a common measure, annual place-miles of service Urban Rail in America (2) a more specific effort to per line-mile (apmplm) where a place-mile was de­ define appropriate demand thresholds for light rail, fined as one place occupying 6 ft 2 in a transit rapid transit, and downtown people movers was under­ vehicle multiplied by l mi of vehicle movement. taken. These thresholds, based on service frequency, The five criteria were operating savings, capital investment levels, and energy and land savings, were applied to the major 1. nemand sufficient to warrant at least a 7 1/2 urban regions in American to establish a generalized min peak-period service headway consistent with the level of national investment for fixed-guideway maximum such headway provided hy existing fixed­ transit. guideway systems; this translates into a demand The findings of these two works as they relate to threshold of 5 million apmplm required for light light rail are reviewed briefing because such mate­ rail; rial is readily available elsewhere. The primary 2, Demand sufficient to create labor savings focus of this paper is on observations about light compared to bus service where light rail is assumed rail from the perspective of a planner who is cur­ to average 20 mph and 8 trains an hour and buses are rently responsible for helping to shape the future assumed to average 12 mph; this translates to 4 transit system of the fourth largest transit system million apmplm required for light rail; in the nation, NJ Transit. 3. Demand sufficient to create life-cycle energy savings compared to mode used by travelers before they diverted to light rail; this measure varies FINDINGS OF RPA STUDIES widely from 7 million to 35 million apmplm with the lowest number in effect if no tunneling is required In Public Transportation and Land Use Policy (..!) the and the highest if the entire line is in tunnel; focus on light rail was largely on an examination of 4. Demand sufficient to save land compared to land use characteristics that could generate a level that consumed by automobile and bus use; this trans­ of demand, measured in daily passenger-miles or pas­ lates to 6 million apmplm if the automobile access sengers, to support light rail transit as a line­ was by arterial roadway and 16 million apmplm if by haul mode in a residential corridor leading to a freeway; and major central business district (CBD). In terms of 5. Demand sufficient to warrant capital invest­ operating costs per passenger, which are lower than ment per passenger-mile consistent with the median those for local bus service, a niche for light rail value of current fixed-guideway investments; this 2 was found in CBDs larger than 20 million ft , How­ translates to 5, 9, or 16 million apmplm assuming ever, on a capital cost basis, measured as capital all at-grade construction, 1/3 in cut and fill, or investment per daily passenger-mile, a light rail 1/5 in tunnel, respectively, line required a CBD of more than 35 million ft2 unless the light rail right-of-way could be built When these criteria were arrayed against the cheaply (i.e., largely at grade). With a downtown of estimated major corridor demand in 24 u.s. cities this size considerable investment in right-of-way, not fully committed to rapid transit systems, it was including some tunneling, to keep the line free from shown that Seattle, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, vehicle traffic interference, could be justified. Dallas, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Milwaukee could Light rail was shown to be a reasonable option in each support at least one light rail line of quite

13 14 TRB State-of-the-Art Report 2 robust standards, including some tunneling. Eight development is hopelessly congested by Trans-Hudson other cities including Portland, Buffalo, and San traffic and cannot be easily expanded because of Diego, each of which has embarked on a light rail adverse topographic features and extremely high program, could support a light rail line but with no capital costs. Fortunately, numerous abandoned or tunnels and some grade separation. Three cities, to-be-abandoned rail freight rights-of-way can be Columbus, Kansas City, and New Orleans, might barely made available to create the nucleus of a transitway support a light rail but only if the right-of-way system. This system would connect with the PATH came cheaply. The five other cities could not come rapid transit system and NJ Transit's rail lines in close to supporting light rail. Hoboken, provide north-south access along the water­ front, and provide access from key points to the NEW JERSEY PERSPECTIVES west, Efforts are now being completed, led by the New Jersey Department of Transportation and NJ Tran­ Light rail has been in operation in New Jersey for sit with consultant assistance, to determine the approximately 50 yearsi the Newark subway is a 4.3- transit and highway network improvements that can absorb varying levels of development. A transit mi, one grade crossing line that carries 12,000 network of up to 25 mi is likely to be recommended passenger trips daily at 22 mph on 24 Presidents' with segments devoted solely to bu sways, segments Commission Cars (PCCs) between Belleville, a con­ devoted solely to light rail, and segments with tiguous suburb north of Newark, and Newark's CBD. This line operates with demand characteristics con­ 5hared busway and light rail rights-of-way. Sizable sistent with light rail lines recommended in the park-and-ride intercept lots beyond the waterfront, works cited above. parking fees, and limitations on parking ratios are Although New Jersey's light rail system consists all likely elements of the proposed plan. Discus­ solely of this line, potential light rail applica­ sions with affected municipalities and developers tions have been suggested from time to time. They and concept engineering for the proposed outline fall in the following major groups: will refine this plan during the coming months.

1. A light rail system connecting the prospec­ NEWARK AIRPORT tive major developments along the Hudson River waterfront and linked to NJ Transit's Hoboken Termi­ Travel demand at Newark Airport has tripled since nal and the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) rapid 1978, largely as a result of deregulated airlines transit system; and resultant low fares, This phenomenon has created 2. Extension of the existing Newark subway to overtaxed parking facilities and a need for improved the south to link with Newark Airport; public transit to the airport, Among the many long­ 3. Branches to existing commuter rail lines on term fixed-guideway options proposed (Figure 1) is unused or lightly used freight lines in either fast­ the extension of the existing Newark subway light growing areas, especially in Monmouth and Ocean Coun­ rail line. This 3-mi connection might be done either ties, or areas of high automobile commuter densities using the right-of-way of the old Central Railroad (i.e., Bergen County); Company of New Jersey (CNJ) Newark branch or by 4. Substitutes for existing commuter rail (e.g., constructing a wholly new right-of-way. In addition, Boonton line or Montclair branch with relatively extension of the PATH rapid transit line to the light traffic); airport, a new station on the Northeast Corridor 5. Extension of the existing Newark subway to with a people mover system connecting the railroad the north possibly as far as Paterson to serve addi­ to the airport, and a people mover connection di­ tional suburban territory; and rectly to Penn Station-Newark are all to be examined "U• the as part of a major joint effort by NJ T~anei t ::.nd state's largest city and largest CBD. the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, with consultant assistance. It must be recognized at the onset that the works cited earlier give only general guidance and are in MONMOUTH AND OCEAN COUNTIES no way a substitute for careful evaluation of the New Jersey light rail prospects, each of which is These two central New Jersey counties are growing unique. Previous efforts to create a general model significantly, The traditional major transit cor­ of light rail suitability based on land use and ridors have been on the wedgesw of the counties with r~sultant demand focused en r ad ial routes to the the ?~orth Jersey Coast Linc (NJCL) carrying 10,000 urban core whereas most of the New Jersey light rail rail commuters and the Route 9 bus corridor carrying prospects serve other purposes in the urban-suburban approximately 8,000 riders to Newark and New York landscape. {Figure 2), NJ Transit in coordination with the New The realistic prospects for each of these pro­ Jersey Department of Transportation has embarked on posals vary significantly, ranging from wrecently an effort to determine how to better serve the grow­ rejectedw to wa real short-term possibility.w The ing markets, especially in the center of these two remaindAr nf ~hiR paper is a discussion of the status countiee, making uee, if po1111ible, of tho Southern of these proposals and the intended actions by NJ and Freehold branches, two unused rail freight Transit and others to determine their eventual fate, rights-of-way that branch off the NJCL, Along with light rail feeder systems, commuter rail extensions and busways will be examined for either or both of HUDSON RIVER WATERFRONT these rights-of-way. Regular route feeder bus ser­ vice not using these rights-of-way is also to be Along a 20-mile stretch of New Jersey's Hudson River examined. waterfront developments have been proposed that t~t~l m~~~ th~n 26 millinn ft2 of floorsoace. 28,000 dwelling units, 2 million ft 2 of r~tail BERGEN COUNTY space, and numerous hotels and marinas. Even should the market in the next generation absorb only some Here too, rail freight lines may be used to carry of this development, the travel demand generated light rail, The purpose would be to capture a larger will require major public transit investment. The share of the Bergen County-to-Manhattan market for highway network that would be used to serve this transit, This i11 traditionally a high automobile use Prospects and Perspectives 15

NEWARK AIRPORT OPTIONS

Newark NYC City Subway L r~ Newark-Penn / '-, ~:..., "'- .._ Station / ·,./ ..... I '\ I \ PATH 1 I I AGT I I / ' / Light Rail ' .,, NEC / ' ' / ' .c McClell._S~. ~GT _..) B

A

F1GURE 1 Proposed fixed-guideway options.

area. Light rail rights-of-way may be found on Con­ rail's northern branch or on the New York Susquehanna F1GURE 2 Existing commuter routes and pol!l!:ible transit and Western Railroad. Light rail might be tied to the extension for Monmouth and Ocean C.Ounties. waterfront transitway network described earlier. NJ Transit is currently exploring all relevant options in a sketch-planning framework. Boonton situation is clearer these options can be examined. MONTCLAIR-BOONTON CORRIDOR NEWARK RADIAL ROUTES The Montclair branch of the Morris & Essex lines and the Boonton line are two commuter rail lines into New light rail routes radiating from downtown Newark Hoboken, where commuters transfer to PATH to com­ have not been considered in the last few years. plete their trip to New York. Because these two Perhaps the only possible option, other than those proximate lines are NJ Transit's poorest performers extensions discussed in the preceding two sections, and because major repairs of the Boonton line appear is a line on Springfield Avenue, which was studied to be necessary, a project is under way to examine some 10 years ago. However, the significant decline how to best modify them, including a possible 1,200- in population in this corridor coupled with the ft connection of the two in Montclair, to provide a unavailability of a right-of-way has dampened any more cost-effective system. In the early stages of previous enthusiasm. the alternatives analysis a variety of options in­ In sum, it would appear that light rail in New volving light rail were explored, including exten­ Jersey may have some applications, but a number of sions of the nearby Newark subway to, onto, and in uncompleted studies make the future quite uncertain. the rights-of-way of the two commuter rail lines. The brightest hope is probably the eventual evolu­ All light rail options have since been rejected tion of a light rail system on the waterfront if the because of either high capital cost or increased amount of new development comes quickly enough to rider inconvenience from added transfers, or both. mobilize construction of a network that could not be handled cost-effectively by a bus system. NEWARK SUBWAY EXTENSIONS NORTH REFERENCES Depending on which alternative is finally chosen for the Montclair~Boonton project, some rights-of-way 1. B.S. Pushkarev and J.M. Zupan. Public Transpor­ may become available to extend the subway along the tation and Land Use Policy. Indiana University Conrail Orange branch right-of-way, possibly east­ Press, Bloomington, 1977. ward on the Boonton line (if abandoned east of the 2. B.S. Pushkarev, J.M. Zupan, and R.S. Cumella. Orange branch), and possibly with a connection Urban Rail in America: An Exploration of Criteria northward on the Newark branch that extends through for Fixed-Guideway Transit. Indiana University Nutley, Clifton, and Paterson. When the Montclair- Press, Bloomington, 1982.